Hearted Youtube comments on Based Camp with Simone & Malcolm Collins (@SimoneandMalcolm) channel.

  1. 1300
  2. 1000
  3. 740
  4. 664
  5. 633
  6. 600
  7. 503
  8. 503
  9. 502
  10. 422
  11. 359
  12. 321
  13. 313
  14. 303
  15. 292
  16. 291
  17. 281
  18. 265
  19. This is going to sound sociopathic via text, so please understand this is a deliberately value-free analysis and is not an endorsement of vigilantism in a moral sense. In many ways, vigilantism helped build higher societies. No tribe emerged from the primordial aether with bureaucratized and abstracted concepts of legality and ethics which in any way resembled high civilizations. Vigilantism was one of the costs "priced in" by social codes. If you screwed a man hard enough, he might just come for you. You can see this reflected in folk wisdom such as "nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing to lose". That cute little adage isn't saying "oh, those with nothing on the line try harder", it's warning that once someone has no chips left on the game board, they might flip the table. History is replete with this echo: "surrender with honor", "allowing an exit", "chose to retire", etc. In our very safe, very insulated, very civilized world, these might seem quant or be accepted as received moral precepts, but they are based on a firm inherited calculus: every man, no matter how reasonable, has a point where he'll turn to tooth and claw, if only to make you bleed with him. We might think of our age as one built on these costs, but so managed that we no longer pay them. Unjust words no longer result in duels, but we say slander is bad. The shopkeeper no longer has to beat thieves, because the justice system punishes theft. And the tribe doesn't have to mob-justice the degenerate who wrecked the common green, because social shame makes the idea of transgressing abhorrent, well before the thought of violence arises. Or rather... our society was functional. For a blip of time in the late modernity, the West managed to reach an amazing peak. We'd priced in vigilantism to our social systems so efficiently that the vigilantism was no longer ever actioned. Unfortunately, over time this lead to virtuous violence being classed as mere violence, and morally equal to unjust violence. Like many modern ills, this wasn't felt at first, as the moral inertia of the old system propelled behavior that was no longer incentivized by the current market. Slowly, though, new actors came about in an age with new incentives, and they better adapted to their environment. If a powerful CEO can get ahead with profit maximization through legal murder, and the only penalty is a fractional hit on a rocketing upward graph? Why not? The only external cost is some disapproval from people he doesn't care about. He's optimized for his environment, because he's recognized that the formerly "priced in" vigilantism behind that disapproval has been replaced with a memory of said vigilantism, like a vestigial clause in a defunct contract. We've been at this point for some time. The grinding inhumanity of our era would have brought our ancestors to violence long before. We've constrained this through the anti-agentic "all violence is (equally) bad" propaganda. So yes, this murder, and moreover, the general public acceptance, is indicative of social degeneration. But it's not a descent from normality. It's a return. A ball was thrown into the air, and for a time (the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries) it seemed to hang suspended at its apex, but it has now begun to fall. The proper response is to recognize where we are, what we are, the historical anomaly we are exiting, and decide how to proceed.
    261
  20. 260
  21. 256
  22. 255
  23. 251
  24. 245
  25. 230
  26. 228
  27. 228
  28. 226
  29. 223
  30. 220
  31. 205
  32. 200
  33. 199
  34. 198
  35. 196
  36. 194
  37. 193
  38. 187
  39. 183
  40. 179
  41. 178
  42. 165
  43. 164
  44. 164
  45. 161
  46. 161
  47. 159
  48. 157
  49. 155
  50. 153